https://x.com/i/status/2073380010996772913 [04/07, 17:59] sekarreporter1: BEFORE THE HON’BLE 13TH METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE , EGMORE , AT CHENNAI Cr1.M.P.No OF 2026 In Crime No.151 of 2026 Saran Jayaraman, (M/S Yrs), S/ o. Jayaraman, No. 4, Sivaraj Street, West Tan-Ibaram, Chennai- 45 Accused vs State represented by The Inspector of Police ,

[

[04/07, 17:52] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/i/status/2073380010996772913
[04/07, 17:59] sekarreporter1: BEFORE THE HON’BLE 13TH METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ,
EGMORE , AT CHENNAI
Cr1.M.P.No OF 2026
In
Crime No.151 of 2026
Saran Jayaraman, (M/S Yrs),
S/ o. Jayaraman,
No. 4, Sivaraj Street, West Tan-Ibaram,
Chennai- 45 Accused
vs
State represented by
The Inspector of Police ,
V6 – Kolathur Police Station
Chennai
Complainant
MEMO OF OBJECTIONS To JUDICIAL REMAND
The accused respectfully submits as follows:
1. The accused was arrested in connection with Crime No. 151 of 2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 79 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sec 4 of TN prohibition of Harassment of woman Act and produced before this Hon ‘ble Court seeking judicial remand.
2. The accused submits that the allegations are false, baseless and denied in toto.
3. The offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Investigating Officer has not demonstrated any compelling necessity for the detention of the accused in judicial custody.
4. The accused is a permanent resident having deep roots in society and there is absolutely no possibility of absconding from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
5. The accused undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
6. No recovery is to be effected from the accused and no custodial detention is necessary for the purpose of investigation.
7. There is no possibility of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
8. The power to authorize remand is a judicial function and this Hon’ble Court is required to independently satisfy itself regarding the necessity for detention and legality of arrest before authorizing judicial custody.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed by mechanical remand orders and detention should be an exception and not the rule. Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
10. In the absence of any valid grounds necessitating detention, the request for judicial remand deserves to be rejected.
PRAYER
Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to reject the request for judicial remand made by the respondent police and release the accused forthwith or pass such further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Dated at Chennai , this the 4th day of July 2026.
Counsel for Accused
IN THE COURT OF THE IN THE COURT OF THE Xlll
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, EGMORE
Cr1.M.P.No. of 2026
In
Crime No.151 /2026
(On the file of the Inspector of police, V-6 Kolathur Police station
Chennai) Saran Jayaraman
. . . Petitioner/ Accused No. 1 vs
State, Rep. by
Inspector of police, (Crime. No. 151/2026)
. . . Respondent/ Complainant
MEMO
M/S. A. DAMODARAN-2231/08
K. CHANDRU-1241/04
R. BALAJ1-215/16
M. ABDUL RAGUMAN- 3978/21
M. KARTHIKEYAN-3900/23
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER and Thirumaran and 50 advts

04/07, 17:52] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/i/status/2073380010996772913
[04/07, 17:52] sekarreporter1: திமுக சட்டத்துறை வக்கீல்கள் சரவணன்
ஏ.தாமோதரன்
தமிழன் பிரசன்னா
சந்துரு
கர்த்திக்
திருமாறன்
சுரேந்திரன்.